Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter

Yahoo News ^ | 11/01/02

[Libloather]

Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter
Fri Nov 1,10:43 AM ET

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - An Australian man is suing his former partner to recover more than $10,000 he spent on a little girl, for things such as presents, zoo trips and meals, after discovering she was not his daughter, a newspaper said on Friday.

"I want it all back -- every cent for every toy, every blanket, every bit of food," the man, who can't be identified for legal reasons, said.

"I wouldn't have spent all that money had I known five years ago she wasn't my kid," he was quoted saying by the Herald-Sun.

The claims include take-away McDonald's food over five years, four visits to an amusement park, three Barbie dolls, a Pooh Bear play tent, a day of skating, and child support payments.

The Herald-Sun said the man took the action after DNA tests found the girl was not his daughter.

The girl's mother said she was willing to repay the child support payments but that she should not have to pay back anything else.

"She had a good time with him that's the main thing," she was quoted as saying. "I don't think he should carry on too much about it. He should treat it like doing something nice with a friend."

[Mamzelle]

re:There is no passage in the Constitution that says: "Oh, by the way, we suspend all these rights, if some child is going to be hurt by their protection.")))

And where does it say in the Constitution that the courts are going to protect one from life's disappointment, from the pain of discovering that one hasn't "beaten the system" after all? Only the pursuit of happiness is mandated, not getting laid without getting hurt (or facing the horror of hurting someone else).

What he gave was a gift, if you want to reduce it all to legalities. There's nothing in the code of law to get his toys and movie tickets back. Property law is one of the easier codes to understand--and it's a long civil suit struggle to prove otherwise. Perhaps he'll get hit with his ex's legal bills in addition to everything else, since everything MUST come down to money. It's a waste of the courts' time---and my money, since my taxes maintain the courts. (Of course, this is Australia we're talking about, but the two countries are under the same tradition of English Common Law.)

[BuddhaBoy]

I think you need an aspirin, frankly.

Maybe you should try again, to tell me what your rant has to do with the law?

[Mamzelle]

But it's rejections like these that can leave dangerous scars, and this man wants the courts to be his "Theatre" of revenge against the child. What kind of mothers and fathers raise these kinds of men?

[BuddhaBoy]

What he gave was a gift, if you want to reduce it all to legalities.

LOL!! NOOOOOOOOOO! WHAT????

Man, are you spinning now! Look, a gift is something given WILLINGLY!!. Come on, now.

Dont you realize that you are using the same arguments that Liberals use because they dont want strict constitutional judges on the courts?

Arent you aware of that? The laws of this country are very clear on Fraud, they are nonexistant on allowing fraud in the case of tramatising a child.

If you spin any faster, you are going to get very dizzy. You can do better than that.

[Mamzelle]

Brodderick didn't take her vengeance on Chelsea. Only let's pretend Chelsea was five, and cuter.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"If the child is hurt,blame the mom."

The mom is to blame for decieving the guy who thought the child was his. The child is being hurt irreparable by the rejection by the guy who thought she was precious, but only if she were his biological child. His attitude is 100% to blame for any and all suffering and feelings of rejection the child is now being forced to bear. One adult in this child's life was all she needed-she doesn't have one.

I wrote in another post that this guy had a right to reclaim his child support and he does, in a callous sense. For the child's sake though, and for the sake of his and her personal relationship, he should write it off to experience. THe unconditional love that a child feels toward the adult in their lives that makes them feel secure, safe, cherished, and confident, should never be treated as inferior to the need of avenging some hurt for which the child is an innocent co-victim of.

Whatever damage to self esteem the adult has suffered from acts of the third party-will be paid back a thousand fold by the child to whom they are percieved as Knights in shining armor. God bless the Children.

[William Terrell]

He has the right to sue, but just because he has the right does not make it the right thing to do.

So, you would be willing to forgive a crook that defrauded you out of your house because it benefited the thief's child. You understand this principle can be applied to that, don't you? In the end of it, you can be unwilling to let the con man off for that, but the courts rules against you because of the precedent where a child is involved.

You folks learn how to think past the first coat of paint. Look around you. The nation is falling into brainless socialism precisely because of such thinking. It is liberal thinking. Are you a conservative?

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Applause for your post 115!

[CAPPSMADNESS]

I mean 155 of course.... :(

[F.J. Mitchell]

I can only speak for one of us all, but I don't know what the h*ll you are trying to say.

[BuddhaBoy]

Under your form of logic, Clinton should have never been convicted of rape, if his having to go to jail would hurt his child. Clinton is a rapist and should have gone to jail, This mother is a Con-artist.

Suffering children dont change that one iota.

[Mamzelle]

The question of "willingly" is after the fact of the gift, and just imagine the gimlet eye the judge is going to focus on this plaintiff. It's the public nature of the suit that is part of what I object to, the humiliation of pubicly repudiating a child, and once that harsh card is played he's going to be skewered. That's the card I'd like to see withdrawn--once played, too late, and there may be some retribution for playing it. Life can be harsh on children and other creatures, as you've virtuously reminded me.

*spin*?

Hey, you're the one for literalities and technicalities and the letter of the law and proper exchanges of services and goods for payment. Unilaterals and bilaterals and all that good stuff. I'm just following your lead..

[MinuteGal]

They are both low-lifes. In addition, why should he be fuming over money spent when for over five years he's been getting for free what he'd ordinarily have to pay two bucks a shot for somewhere else.

Leni

[BuddhaBoy]

I am trying to say that a childs hurt feelings play no role in whether or not someone can or should seek redress if a crime is commited against them.

Everyone here calling this man names for wanted his money back, are excusing a crime because someone will be hurt by enforcing the law. I dont agree.

[BuddhaBoy]

It's the public nature of the suit that is part of what I object to, the humiliation of pubicly repudiating a child, and once that harsh card is played he's going to be skewered.

I am waiting for you to show me how that is relevant to the fraud committed against the man, and his right to seek redress?

Its not, and you know it.

[BuddhaBoy]

Gotta tell ya, your post 155 is really on point. Well done.

[Aracelis]

Maybe you should try again, to tell me what your rant has to do with the law?

ROFL! You just don't get it.

Tell me, do you believe in God? Do you have a soul? Which laws are higher...God's or man's? We could go on and on, but you've already proven yourself to be a Pharisee.

Regardless of the personal issues between the "adults" in this case, there is a child involved. One who is likely frightened, very sad, and blaming herself for all the trouble.

The mature/compassionate thing to do would be to accept the role of surrogate-father. I'm sure he has enjoyed being a father to-date...at least a little bit, else he would have abandoned her at a much younger age.

So get real. There are some things more important than just "THE LAW"...like maybe a little girl's future.

[Aracelis]

But it's rejections like these that can leave dangerous scars, and this man wants the courts to be his "Theatre" of revenge against the child.

A fact that has been noted more than once on these hallowed FR threads. Girls that grow up without loving fathers are at great risk for self-destructive behaviors.

But never mind that...this guy wants his money back. What a sweetheart! What a catch! (/sarcasm).

[Route66]

"So, you would be willing to forgive a crook that defrauded you out of your house because it benefited the thief's child. You understand this principle can be applied to that, don't you? In the end of it, you can be unwilling to let the con man off for that, but the courts rules against you because of the precedent where a child is involved.

You folks learn how to think past the first coat of paint. Look around you. The nation is falling into brainless socialism precisely because of such thinking. It is liberal thinking. Are you a conservative?"

Oh I am very much a conservative. I love my family. I'm sure you love yours, too.

We are talking about FAMILY here. This woman he is suing is his 'partner' (translation: He has been living with her like a wife). The child is his daughter in every way but blood. As far as the child is concerned, he IS her father. This was a FAMILY.

In the example you gave, their was no parent / child relationship. If you cannot see that this situation is not the same as letting a crook steal your money or your stuff there is nothing I can say that will make this any clearer.

I said that if this man could walk away from this little girl after 5 years of being her father he was cold as ice.
I stand by that. He may sue and he may win his money back, but he is a moral loser.